Social Security - Government cheats you out of 2 Mil $

http//thelibertarianforum.com/General/Social-Security-is-inefficient.html
See how the government cheats the AVERAGE AMERICAN out of 2,000,000. We should definitely have the choice of opting out of social security.

Btw, If you liked the article. Please Digg/Stumble/Reddit it =). Buttons on the bottom to do so.

[quotef68fbbad70]Then how come it gives a mere 5.3% interest, while competitive Money market accounts yield 5.4%+.[/quotef68fbbad70]
They are comparing today's rates to the long-term rates of SS?

[quotef68fbbad70]History has proven that the safest investment in the market is the S&P 500 index. This index tracks 500 of America’s most prestigious blue chip companies and is a sound investment, with minimal risk.[/quotef68fbbad70]
No.

The article foolishly assumes that the S&P will return its average return in the future. The article uses the average return of 10.4 but look at historical returns and count how many times the S&P returns an amount close to 10.4. Returns are often far away from that number, but the long-term average is that. Using this long-term number the article ignores the fact that a retiree could save his entire life, say the $2mil, and then have back-to-back years of negative returns and not be so great. Using the 40 years the article mentions of putting money into SS, the worst return on the S&P 500 for any 40 year period is about 5.4%, which is the same as SS. The best return is 14.7%.

The article incorrectly assumes that all people rely on SS for all of their benefits. SS is made to keep afloat those that do not plan for themselves. I personally have no sympathy for them, but I do not want to have to live in a place with so many people on the street because they did not plan for what seems inevitable. Without social security benefits, 47% of people above 65 would have income below the poverty level. 22% of elderly rely on Social Security for all of their income and 34% rely on it for more than 90%. Social Security is not just a retirement plan. It helps those whose main income-earner dies or becomes disabled.

There are many easy fixes for social security. Eliminating the cap on income taxed would solve 93% of the problem. The are many other solutions such as investing the funds in higher-returning assets, raising the payroll tax slightly, or gradually increasing the retirement age since people today are retiring earlier and living longer than ever, meaning their money now has to last them much longer than every. We need to focus on closing the gap.

I pay into SS on my part time jobs. As of now, I have enough quarters to draw SS and my current retirement payout is 1800 a month or so... Doesn't seem too bad for working part time.

However, I have a retirement system through work, I don't pay SS, just Medicare taxes. I will retire at 50 with 80% of my salary, sounds great, especially if you think I'll be getting that 1800 from SS. But I don't, they will reduce my benifits because I have a supplemental retirement system to less than $150 a month. So why am I paying into it every where else? What's the point if I'm not going to be able to draw on it.

I can't say I have a fix to it, and I'm not saying the article is 100% right, but at the same time.

I definately think they need a new system in place. Social security is a great idea and all, but in my opinion the way it should work is that for one, you should be able to opt out of social security. Second, each individual that does decide to pay for social security should have it go into their very own account that they get when they retire as opposed to your money going to pay for someone else who decided they did not want to plan for their own future, or whatever reason. The way its going now, they are even saying that social security may run out by the time I am old enough to retire, so why am I paying for it now if that is really the case?

[quote4ddb110868="Gigante"][quote4ddb110868]Then how come it gives a mere 5.3% interest, while competitive Money market accounts yield 5.4%+.[/quote4ddb110868]
They are comparing today's rates to the long-term rates of SS?

[quote4ddb110868]History has proven that the safest investment in the market is the S&P 500 index. This index tracks 500 of America’s most prestigious blue chip companies and is a sound investment, with minimal risk.[/quote4ddb110868]
No.

The article foolishly assumes that the S&P will return its average return in the future. The article uses the average return of 10.4 but look at historical returns and count how many times the S&P returns an amount close to 10.4. Returns are often far away from that number, but the long-term average is that. Using this long-term number the article ignores the fact that a retiree could save his entire life, say the $2mil, and then have back-to-back years of negative returns and not be so great. Using the 40 years the article mentions of putting money into SS, the worst return on the S&P 500 for any 40 year period is about 5.4%, which is the same as SS. The best return is 14.7%.

The article incorrectly assumes that all people rely on SS for all of their benefits. SS is made to keep afloat those that do not plan for themselves. I personally have no sympathy for them, but I do not want to have to live in a place with so many people on the street because they did not plan for what seems inevitable. Without social security benefits, 47% of people above 65 would have income below the poverty level. 22% of elderly rely on Social Security for all of their income and 34% rely on it for more than 90%. Social Security is not just a retirement plan. It helps those whose main income-earner dies or becomes disabled.

There are many easy fixes for social security. Eliminating the cap on income taxed would solve 93% of the problem. The are many other solutions such as investing the funds in higher-returning assets, raising the payroll tax slightly, or gradually increasing the retirement age since people today are retiring earlier and living longer than ever, meaning their money now has to last them much longer than every. We need to focus on closing the gap.[/quote4ddb110868]

Oh gosh. There are SO many things wrong with your post. Lets start with the basics.

Look at the Social Security returns vs S&P.

Social Security
http//www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/annualinterestrates.html

S&P 500
1993- 9.99%
1994- 1.31%
1995- 37.43
1996- 23.07
1997- 33.36
1998- 28.58
1999- 21.04
2000- -9.11
2001- -11.88
2002- -22.10
2003- 28.70
2004- 10.87

These are the figures I found just now. How could you say I was silly to take the lowest social security return %. The lowest was below 2%. I was MORE then fair by taking today's estimate, over the AVERAGE. And you said
"The article foolishly assumes that the S&P will return its average return in the future. The article uses the average return of 10.4 but look at historical returns and count how many times the S&P returns an amount close to 10.4. Returns are often far away from that number, but the long-term average is that. "

Far from that? Thats why I used the AVERAGE. The S&P 500 even today earns near the 10.4% range. Don't think that it had superb performance in the past, but not today. You also said that the best return for SS is ~14.7%. How many years did social security earn that much? Maybe 2-3. If you look at the S&P's yearly return, it averages out to 10.4%+ A year. This ALREADY factors in the years it lost money. So you're statement about "paying off the negatives years" makes no sense.

You also said
---
The article incorrectly assumes that all people rely on SS for all of their benefits. SS is made to keep afloat those that do not plan for themselves. I personally have no sympathy for them, but I do not want to have to live in a place with so many people on the street because they did not plan for what seems inevitable. Without social security benefits, 47% of people above 65 would have income below the poverty level. 22% of elderly rely on Social Security for all of their income and 34% rely on it for more than 90%. Social Security is not just a retirement plan. It helps those whose main income-earner dies or becomes disabled.
---
The government SHOULD pay off all of it's obligations to current retirees. New workers should have the OPTION to opt out of social security. Not that many people are "stupid". Milton Friedman said that maybe 5-7% will fail to save for their future without social security. Why should EVERYONE have to pay for their stupidity? If they don't save their money, Thats their problem. Perhaps they wanted to SPEND IT. That is THEIR right to SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY in ANY WAY they wish. The government shoulden't FORCE me to save my own money.

Ultimately ,my argument is that people should have the LIBERTY of spending their money, or investing it, in any way they wish to. IF they want to go to Vegas with their retirement money, and let it ride on 23 Black. God bless them. Thats their right. If they're impoverished, they can go to their local private charity / Church. The welfare in the USA is a total joke. The USA spends $40,000 per family of 4 under the poverty line each YEAR! Much of that money gets sucked up in the bureaucracy. If only they just wrote them that check, They'd be out of poverty.

if you honestly think that the government is going to put hundreds of millions of dollars in an index fund.....

If people want to use gains from the stock market to fund their retirement then they can just open an IRA account and invest in whatever stocks, index funds or mutual funds they like.

It is crazy for the government to invest other people's retirment money into something that could lose value even if the potential gains are better. Gains from the S&P500 or any other index fund is not guranteed. No one can guage future perfomance and during bear markets, even loses from index funds of blue chips can be significant.

No no no! I never said the government SHOULD put money into the index fund. They can continue to do what they are now, BUT, Individuals should have the option to OPT OUT of social security. They can then invest the money however they like. Mutual funds, index, money market, CDs, or just spend it. Their choice. I just used the S&P to compare one other investment over social security.

Also, THE S&P500 average annual return is 10.4%. Thats combined with all the bull and bear markets. The ups and downs. I never said the government should invest your money in the S&P. They should allow people the liberty to OPT out of their program. A money market account can give high yield then Social Security, and the percentage can be guaranteed. Social Security interest is NOT guaranteed. The interest on it could go back to 2% in the future. But if you get a 10 Year CD, the % Will not change. Or even a 10-30 year treasury bond, the percentage is guaranteed. These are just some alternatives to social security. People should have the right to decide where they put their money. whether they invest it, or let it ride in Vegas, thats their money to spend / invest as they please.

/agree...You earn the money, you should be able to spend/invest it however the hell you like. Sort of off topic here, but the same goes for gambling...I don't understand how the government can try to put laws on gambling when you are using your OWN money. What do they really care what we do with our own money? I really question some of the decisions they make...oh well nothin we can really do about it.

It's not as simple as implementing an opt-out for SS though. As you well know, SS isn't a personal investment account that is earmarked for us to withdraw when we retire. The whole basis of the SS program is that those paying in today are funding the pensions of those already retired, and theoretically YOUR retirement funds will come from the younger generations that will be paying in tomorrow.

If people could opt out today, that would be great for those of us still working. But what about the retired generation who paid in all those years with the promise of retirement -- they're left out in the cold now because those of us who would be funding their pension have stopped paying into the system. So the gap would be huge, and it would take a major reform of the whole system combined with a huge capital outlay of funds to fill the gap between the mandatory and opt-out generations.

You can argue that SS isn't adequate as a sole retirement plan, and with that I would agree. However it's only been during the last generation that awareness of that fact has been pounded into people. For too many years SS was sold to older generations (or at least understood by them) to be all they would need in their golden years. Especially for those of limited means.

KnightTrader, I was talking about comparing todays savings rates to the rates of Social Security. When savings rates were low I could have written a great article on how SS was the best thing ever because it was earning more than savings.

An opt-out would not work. The idea is that people will have money when they do not plan for it (retirees that did not plan, death of a major income earner). Having an opt-out would guarantee these people would have no money because if they did not plan for retirement on their own, what would make you think they would want to fund SS if they had the option?

And I don't see why the government can't force you to save. Using the same reasoning, you can't force the government to pay for your broke ass when retired, yet that logic doesn't work, the current taxpayers front the bill.

[quotedc8075c485="dmorris68"]It's not as simple as implementing an opt-out for SS though. As you well know, SS isn't a personal investment account that is earmarked for us to withdraw when we retire. The whole basis of the SS program is that those paying in today are funding the pensions of those already retired, and theoretically YOUR retirement funds will come from the younger generations that will be paying in tomorrow.[/quotedc8075c485]

Ah, A government run Ponzi/Pyrmaid scheme. If any other private company did this, they'd be locked up. Pay the retirees from new workers. The government can pay back the retirees via selling off some of the trillions of dollars worth of assets it has. A better idea is to get rid of Government run social security, but some people may want it. Thats why other countries give their citizens the choice for government run investments or private ones.

[quote09b2b675d2="KnightTrader"][quote09b2b675d2="dmorris68"]It's not as simple as implementing an opt-out for SS though. As you well know, SS isn't a personal investment account that is earmarked for us to withdraw when we retire. The whole basis of the SS program is that those paying in today are funding the pensions of those already retired, and theoretically YOUR retirement funds will come from the younger generations that will be paying in tomorrow.[/quote09b2b675d2]

Ah, A government run Ponzi/Pyrmaid scheme. If any other private company did this, they'd be locked up. Pay the retirees from new workers. The government can pay back the retirees via selling off some of the trillions of dollars worth of assets it has. A better idea is to get rid of Government run social security, but some people may want it. Thats why other countries give their citizens the choice for government run investments or private ones.[/quote09b2b675d2]

C'mon. Hyperbole doesn't make your point well.

How would you solve the SS problem as it is today, ensuring that everyone who has paid in is compensated proportionally to what they paid, and proportional to the level at which they could have invested/spent the money if it wasn't "invested" in SS?

[quote84003d40e2="Gigante"]KnightTrader, I was talking about comparing todays savings rates to the rates of Social Security. When savings rates were low I could have written a great article on how SS was the best thing ever because it was earning more than savings.

An opt-out would not work. The idea is that people will have money when they do not plan for it (retirees that did not plan, death of a major income earner). Having an opt-out would guarantee these people would have no money because if they did not plan for retirement on their own, what would make you think they would want to fund SS if they had the option?

And I don't see why the government can't force you to save. Using the same reasoning, you can't force the government to pay for your broke ass when retired, yet that logic doesn't work, the current taxpayers front the bill.[/quote84003d40e2]

It's not the governments role to force you to save. Infact, it should NOT be the governments role to put food on my table either. Under my logic, Taxpayers would be HAPPY. They now have choices. Or we can move out of the Social Security system. Pay back current obligations by selling off assets, and phase out of it slowly. I don't get your first paragraph. I used AVERAGES for BOTH social security and the S&P for a reason. They're AVERAGES. They're computed from 50+ Years of data. It's completely "fair" to compare two averages. S&P average=10.4%. Social Security =~5.4% I believe. The government CAN force you to do anything, Know why? Because they have all the guns to force you. My argument is that they shouldn't. It's my Money. Let me do as I please with it. If I want to gamble it all away in Vegas, I should be allowed to. Taxpayers won't have to pay me anything when I retire. if I retire a broke man, That sucks for me. Taxpayers shouldn't have to cover my ass. If i'm broke and hungry, I could go to private charities / church for food, or I can work till I'm dead if I can find employment. It's not the governments role to "put food on my table" or "Make sure I'm employed". If the government wants to make sure everyone is employed / Not hungry, we can become socialist. It's unfortunate that America is slowly moving towards Socialism with the current trends. Universal Health care, Hah! What a joke, Thats a topic for another day.
Btw, I totally agree with you about online gambling. It's completely ridiculous that its illegal. Its my money, Let me spend it however I like. I'm all about individual liberties. Basically I support freedom to do anything, so long as you don't infringe on OTHER peoples freedoms. That includes taking heroine, cocaine, etc. My body. Not the governments.

[quote821fcd2984="doylnea"][quote821fcd2984="KnightTrader"][quote821fcd2984="dmorris68"]It's not as simple as implementing an opt-out for SS though. As you well know, SS isn't a personal investment account that is earmarked for us to withdraw when we retire. The whole basis of the SS program is that those paying in today are funding the pensions of those already retired, and theoretically YOUR retirement funds will come from the younger generations that will be paying in tomorrow.[/quote821fcd2984]

Ah, A government run Ponzi/Pyrmaid scheme. If any other private company did this, they'd be locked up. Pay the retirees from new workers. The government can pay back the retirees via selling off some of the trillions of dollars worth of assets it has. A better idea is to get rid of Government run social security, but some people may want it. Thats why other countries give their citizens the choice for government run investments or private ones.[/quote821fcd2984]

C'mon. Hyperbole doesn't make your point well.

How would you solve the SS problem as it is today, ensuring that everyone who has paid in is compensated proportionally to what they paid, and proportional to the level at which they could have invested/spent the money if it wasn't "invested" in SS?[/quote821fcd2984]

I answered this question. The government should pay back ALL CURRENT social security obligations. They can do this by selling off some of the trillions of assets the government currently has. I personally believe the government shoulden't even get involved in Social Security.

PS Sorry for the Dbl post =[

Social security is about as reliable as getting free stuff from sites.

First, realize that what's "fair" or "moral" has nothing to do with the government's job or social security's role. You can't argue that SS should change because it's stealing or because you don't want to pay for others' retirements.

Second, just a quick, off-topic question How many people here who are bashing SS supported Bush's social security reform proposition? (Or even knew about it?) Just curious...

Third, social security will not only be reformed but eliminated rather soon (within our lifetime). It, combined with medicare, takes up more than 50% of the national budget. And that percentage grows yearly, as the wage index increases and people live longer, and it will grow even more when the baby boomers retire in the next few years. Within ten years, SS will be paying out more than it's collecting.

A quick fix would be to base SS on the price index, rather than the wage index (which is higher). Currently this would mean retirees would get $300-400 less per month. Great Britain uses this system with success. But ultimately I don't think there's anything we can do to save what is now an outdated program.

The government has no place forcing me to save for my own retirement. As Milton Friedman said, "You can't judge an idea by it's intentions, you have to judge it by results". Social Security had good intentions, but the results are terrible. Because 5% of America coulden't say for their retirement, the "big brother", or the government, forces everyone to put money into this program.
I also just wrote an article on Decriminalizing ALL Drugs. It's on the same site, if anyone wants to read it / Inputs.

[quote331914633a="KnightTrader"]The government has no place forcing me to save for my own retirement. As Milton Friedman said, "You can't judge an idea by it's intentions, you have to judge it by results". Social Security had good intentions, but the results are terrible. Because 5% of America coulden't say for their retirement, the "big brother", or the government, forces everyone to put money into this program.[/quote331914633a]

I agree with your quote but [b331914633a]you[/b331914633a] are judging based on intentions—the difference is that your intentions for the government and social security are different and thus not met.

Intentions of Social Security Maintain a more stable national economy in order to prevent another Depression.
Government's intentions Maintain a healthy, thriving society.

Social Security is a means for the government to meet its intentions, and in that respect they both succeed. The problem, of course, is that social security is reaching a critical point at which its intentions can no longer be reached (but that's just an issue of means—your post was dealing more with ends, and intentions).

Intentions were NEVER reached. Americans aren't investing for their future better because of social security. They could possibly be doing WORSE for their future. Today, 12.4% of their wages are locked up for social security, which earns lousy returns. People may not save additional money, because they may think social security enough. Without it, people may make better investments (ie. S&P 500). The intentions for social security were good, but there were no good results.

Milton Friedman explains it very well.
http//thelibertarianforum.com/Videos/Milton-Friedman-Free-minds-Limited-Government.html

While Social Security may not be the most effective retirement plan for every American, it's one that can be enforced for every American, which prevents another Depression, which is what SS was created to avoid.

You are ignoring my initial points in the article. As an individual, What if I don't want to save my money? What if I want to gamble it all away? It should be my right to spend my money, The way I want to. Or invest it, the way I want to.

Fuck FDR. His socialist politcs have now created a system that we may never recover from. The idea may have sounded like a good one at the time, but now have left us forever dependent on the social fuck up of the '40s.

I can't even vote and yet i've paid thousands to social security alone. There isn't alot of hope for my generation as far as social issues go. With the constant threat of SS going bankrupt theres no promise that I will even be able to collect it when the time comes for me to recieve what i've been paying for.

For people like me who have been working since they where 14 and have paid well over 4k to SS whats going to be more beneficial to them the money that they limightli get back from SS or a college degree? Luckly for me college is taken care of, I have money for it already. But the fact remains for many people money for college simply isn't there. If they could have saved the money that they spent on SS and invested it themselves they could very likely go to college.

KnightTrader your arguement has one fundamental flaw - you assume Americans want freedom. As Gigante points out a lot of people have bought into the notion that government should taking care of them. Those people and and their apologists also make up the majority.

Of course Americans want freedom. They're been duped by the politicians with all their "good intentions". Most Americans don't know the problems related to America's socialist ways.

[quotefcd61b03f1="KnightTrader"]The government has no place forcing me to save for my own retirement. As Milton Friedman said, "You can't judge an idea by it's intentions, you have to judge it by results". Social Security had good intentions, but the results are terrible. Because 5% of America coulden't say for their retirement, the "big brother", or the government, forces everyone to put money into this program.
I also just wrote an article on Decriminalizing ALL Drugs. It's on the same site, if anyone wants to read it / Inputs.[/quotefcd61b03f1]

I already quoted statistics and then you say that 5% don't save so we have to? Off the top of my head I believe it is 22% relying 100% on Social Security, 34% relying for SS to make 90% of their income and almost 2/3 relying on it for more than half their retirement income. Please bring facts to the table if you want a real academic debate.

BEFORE social security 5% diden't say. Why should they save today when the government is ALREADY FORCING them to? Todays numbers on reliance on SS is irrevelent. I was referring to before SS came into effect

[quoteff26dc4ca9="KnightTrader"]BEFORE social security 5% diden't say. Why should they save today when the government is ALREADY FORCING them to? Todays numbers on reliance on SS is irrevelent. I was referring to before SS came into effect[/quoteff26dc4ca9]

Where did you get the number 5%?

SS was introduced in the '40s... whatever statistics you're using from before SS was introduced are hopelessly, utterly outdated.

The problem with the Libertarian viewpoint is that it assumes things about human nature that simply are not real. The problem with Libertarians is that they swallow the Libertarian propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Libertarianism is misnamed. In reality, it more closely resembles Fascism - the strong survive, the weak aren't worth considering.

In order to have a healthy society and a healthy economy, ALL the people must have their basic needs provided for - namely food, water, shelter, clothing and a reasonable amount of healthcare.

Before the 1930's, this country was run by a handful of the strong, abusing and using the weak for profit. These handful were the driving force of this country's economy.

"...There can be no high civilization without enslavement of the masses, either nominal or real. There must... be a lower class, given up to physical toil and confined to an animal nature; and a higher one thereby acquires leisure and wealth for a more expanded intelligence and improvement, and becomes the directing soul of the lower." - [ie1fb606ad6]from Uncle Tom's Cabin[/ie1fb606ad6]

What happens when an economic, social and/or political oligarchy fails? Economic and social depression. The programs that were put in place to ensure the basic needs of our citizens is what has prevented and will prevent another economic and social collapse. This is extremely importantly politically as well. America could not survive as a political super-power if such an interior collapse were to occur. (When the collapse of the 1930's happened, America was still isolationist and not a superpower).

DO NOT BELIEVE PROPAGANDA!! THAT WAS THE GREATEST WEAPON IN HITLER'S ARSENAL AND CONTINUES TO BE THE STRONGEST TOOL FOR ANY AND ALL LEADERS TO PROSPER!!

~~~ I'm sure someone is going to say, 'What has this got to do with Social Security?' It has everything to do with it. Social Security is a part of the larger machinations of our very successful democratic society. You cannot separate it from the whole. ~~~

Your talking about ME letting the poor and weak suffer? Look at your quote, It sounds pretty socialist / Dictatorial to me. Thanks for the quote form Uncle Toms Cabin. Look at some of the more.... Famous people preaching libertarianism.... Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Milton Friedman, etc. But you failed to cite any examples or flaws with Libertarianism. Libertarianism actually allows the poor / impoverished to ESCAPE poverty. Social Security, Income tax, Fica, all take MONEY from the working class. Without these bureaucratic programs, the POOR, The WORKER would have MORE money to take care of himself with. Its only when these socialist policies of trying to "daddy" and "care" for everyone, that people become poorer. I'm sure welfare has "good intentions" but the results are terrible. Look at welfare today. Government spends 40K per family of 4 under the poverty line. They're still impoverished though. Because the 40k goes through the bureaucratic system. Debate me on single points on Libertarianism, rather then just outright attacking the philosophy without... Any arguments.

Btw, Are you a democrat? Sounds like it.

I'm a minister and I have the option of opting out of Social Security. I have taken full advantage of doing so and have bought a whole life policy with a disability policy linked to it. I take the rest of the social security amount that I would have been contributing and invest it into a pre-tax 403b (like a 401K for non-profits) through our church. I'm getting better benefits for 1/2 the price and saving the rest.

The funny thing is that my tax code is based on what the congress implemented for themselves in I think the 70's. They wanted to make themselves a fat tax advantage and realized that the only way to get it done with any kind of public support, is to say that it was for the ministers out there. They then wrote in the section about them getting it as well.

Shady as can be. If S.S. and the tax code is not good for our government leaders, it's not good for our nations people either. I'm just in a position to take advantage.

No ones criticizing you for taking advantage of it, I would do the same thing if I could. People naturally want more. Not your fault government policies let you do that. They shouldn't though, =/. Thats the problem.

No, I'm not a Democrat. I do not subscribe to any of the established political parties in existence today. I think they're all flawed. Basic human nature overcomes any higher moral values in most cases. These political philosophies are great in theory, but human beings are too greedy, too power-hungry, too lazy, and too deceitful to allow any of them to actually work on a practical level. That's my point about Libertarianism - it would be awesome if it worked in practice, but because of human nature it would actually be a very scary nightmare. That's why we need a whole array of government programs, oversight, and laws to balance human nature against moral and ethical ideals. Without it, there would be no way to protect the sheep from the wolves.

Knighttrader,

I didn't think anyone was criticising, I was actually trying to help make your point. Forced S.S. is a rip off. I was using my example of Senate given free-will to illustrate that I can do better than what the government does for me and they know it because of thier self exemptions as well.

I'm with you man.

Jason

The problem with what your complaint about libertarianism is the fact that you consider "greed" A bad quality. I think being greedy is phenomenal. It creates innovation, jobs, wealth. I Highly recommend you watch John Stossel's segment on "greed" on Daily Motion. Parts 1-3.

Yet another point against. roll

[quote5a883fe743="skepticalcynic"]Yet another point against. roll[/quote5a883fe743]

Are you talking about John Stossel's "Greed" being a point against?

[quotea03c9fbda9="tylerc"][quotea03c9fbda9="skepticalcynic"]Yet another point against. roll[/quotea03c9fbda9]

Are you talking about John Stossel's "Greed" being a point against?[/quotea03c9fbda9]

No, I'm talking about the [ba03c9fbda9][ia03c9fbda9]idea [/ia03c9fbda9][/ba03c9fbda9]of greed being a good thing as a point against.

[quotefae93758d0="skepticalcynic"][quotefae93758d0="tylerc"][quotefae93758d0="skepticalcynic"]Yet another point against. roll[/quotefae93758d0]

Are you talking about John Stossel's "Greed" being a point against?[/quotefae93758d0]

No, I'm talking about the [bfae93758d0][ifae93758d0]idea [/ifae93758d0][/bfae93758d0]of greed being a good thing as a point against.[/quotefae93758d0]
And I agree with your notion of greed being a bad thing. However greed is often an entirely subjective concept too, so what you or I might consider greed, someone else might not. While we can probably all agree that someone who destroys other people's livelihood just to make more money (Enron execs, for example) is a good example of greed being bad, others consider any sort of materialistic excess (nice house, 2 cars, 3 plasma TV's, etc.) also a form of greed. While many of us would consider that just the well-earned trappings of success.

In my mind, greed is when acquisition of wealth comes at the expense of others, and therefore is always bad. But being honestly successful and having nice things that you're earned does not qualify as greed to me. However some would argue that your money could have been better spent helping others, and therefore you're being greedy by not sharing your wealth (a somewhat socialistic point of view). I'm not sure where KnightTrader's point of view falls within that, but my point is that we can't all agree on what constitutes greed, and therefore we must not be quick to judge others who have a different definition than us.

Your point is well taken, David. And you're right, I was somewhat generalizing. I guess I should state my view more clearly.

[quote45ef4d4cab="dmorris"]...greed is when acquisition of wealth comes at the expense of others...[/quote45ef4d4cab]

This I wholeheartedly agree with. In my mind, a desire for self-improvement and a comfortable lifestyle is not greed. I would define it more as ambition. But ambition can be taken to an extreme as well. So I feel that anyone who makes a blanket recommendation for either greed or ambition without a caveat, is being socially irresponsible. Nothing is black or white - everything is in shades of gray.

What Enron did was Illegal. Thats not being greedy, it's breaking the law. Greed that comes from honest work. Pretty much CEO of any company, Earns their money, thus they can spend it however they like. Its better to Reinvest profits into the company, rather then give it to charity. When you give to charity, You give a hand out. When you create jobs, you provide a means for someone to support themselves. Big difference.

Btw, Dmorris, you definition of greed is awkward. It would include EVER Major company in the world, as they "beat" their competition, thus became wealthy at the expense others, (The competition that they beat).

C'mon now, I think it was pretty obvious I wasn't speaking in business terms, i.e. legitimate competition. I was speaking in personal terms.

What Enron did just happened to be illegal, but was also unethical. Many times ethics or compassion can be trampled on without breaking a law, and in those cases where greed is the motivator for doing so, I consider it equally as bad as any illegal action that a company like Enron might undertake. Therefore in my eyes, greed (as I define it) is bad regardless of legal status.

The CEO that lays off 10 people just so he can pad his bonus by an extra half-million (and thus not net any savings to the bottom line) would fit my definition of a greedy bastard. Of course you'll never see it worded that way, but how many times have you heard of a company "tightening its belt" by laying off folks, yet the CEO and executives take home ever increasing salaries and bonuses? That may be an overly simplistic example since there are lots of complexities involved in corporate high finance. But I've always been of the opinion that "belt tightening" should start from the top where it makes the most impact from the fewest people, but unfortunately things seldom work out that way. I admire those companies where the CEO cuts his salary, or only makes a $1/year salary, with an annual bonus dependent on company performance and the bottom line. Of course even that can be manipulated to an advantage, but you get my point. There ARE compassionate CEO's out there, just as there are greedy ones.

As an anecdotal example, I used to work for a guy who owned a seasonal business, where the fall & winter months were particularly lean on income and we survived on capital built up during the busy spring & summer months. This worked for a few years until we moved the business to another state during the summer. The move took an unexpected toll on capital, resulting in major shortfalls in December. Finally, I was told that payroll wouldn't be made right around Christmas time. What I didn't know until then was that he had months before cut his own salary to zero and had taken a part time labor job just to pay his own bills, so he could still make payroll for me. He had hoped he could continue paying me until business picked up again, but it just didn't work out. THAT is the kind of business owner or CEO that I respect -- those who think first of their employees before themselves.

[quote78f278475c="dmorris68"]C'mon now, I think it was pretty obvious I wasn't speaking in business terms, i.e. legitimate competition. I was speaking in personal terms.

What Enron did just happened to be illegal, but was also unethical. Many times ethics or compassion can be trampled on without breaking a law, and in those cases where greed is the motivator for doing so, I consider it equally as bad as any illegal action that a company like Enron might undertake. Therefore in my eyes, greed (as I define it) is bad regardless of legal status.

The CEO that lays off 10 people just so he can pad his bonus by an extra half-million (and thus not net any savings to the bottom line) would fit my definition of a greedy bastard. Of course you'll never see it worded that way, but how many times have you heard of a company "tightening its belt" by laying off folks, yet the CEO and executives take home ever increasing salaries and bonuses? That may be an overly simplistic example since there are lots of complexities involved in corporate high finance. But I've always been of the opinion that "belt tightening" should start from the top where it makes the most impact from the fewest people, but unfortunately things seldom work out that way. I admire those companies where the CEO cuts his salary, or only makes a $1/year salary, with an annual bonus dependent on company performance and the bottom line. Of course even that can be manipulated to an advantage, but you get my point. There ARE compassionate CEO's out there, just as there are greedy ones.

As an anecdotal example, I used to work for a guy who owned a seasonal business, where the fall & winter months were particularly lean on income and we survived on capital built up during the busy spring & summer months. This worked for a few years until we moved the business to another state during the summer. The move took an unexpected toll on capital, resulting in major shortfalls in December. Finally, I was told that payroll wouldn't be made right around Christmas time. What I didn't know until then was that he had months before cut his own salary to zero and had taken a part time labor job just to pay his own bills, so he could still make payroll for me. He had hoped he could continue paying me until business picked up again, but it just didn't work out. THAT is the kind of business owner or CEO that I respect -- those who think first of their employees before themselves.[/quote78f278475c]

A CEO's duty is to build shareholder value. His 1st priority is to the company shareholders. CEOs deserve the money they earn. Its his company to run. The shareholders elected him. If he wants to pay himself a bonus, by firing employees, I See nothing wrong with it, because the board has to approve. And they wouldn't approve if it isn't in the best interest of the company. Believe it or not, CEOs that are paid countless millions, are paid that way, because they're GOOD at what they do. Ben And Jerry's tried to limit their ceo's pay, by saying the lowest level worker and the CEO will have no more then 6x difference in pay. That didn't work. They fired their ceo and got one thats 12x difference. Then they fired him again, and got one that they paid I think 25x+ Difference. It goes to show that, good CEOs need those huge bonuses. The company can get a shitty CEO and under perform, but they'd rather perform well, and pay their CEO well.

I have absolutely zero problems with CEO's making millions. I just question when CEO's of [i22d39b4071]failing[/i22d39b4071] companies, or companies that are [i22d39b4071]NOT[/i22d39b4071] building shareholder value, continue to receive pay or binus increases. Boards are not above greed and corruption either, or being out of touch with humanity. How many have terminated a CEO for underperformance, yet give a severance package that would feed a small third-world country?

I'm as capitalistic as they come. Not a socialistic bone in my body. I just don't buy that business comes first before common decency, because I've known and worked for too many companies that put their people first. It's not an impossible concept.

Isn't this all off-topic, though?

[quote908bcf2977="ilanbg"]Isn't this all off-topic, though?[/quote908bcf2977]
Yes it is, but since the OP is participating in and furthering the off-topic discussion, I suspect he doesn't mind. So here we are. ;)

This off-topic thread becoming even more off-topic was my doing, I fear. But like I said - it's all part of the big economic picture and really can't be separated.

But to get back to the real subject of Social Security... IF it were possible to separate SS from the rest of the economy... I have to say I think Social Security and Medicare money should be used only to support people who are disabled and cannot support themselves. It should NOT be used to support the retired and elderly. Retired and elderly people should be cared for by their families - that's the way it's been for thousands of years and that's the way it was before the enactment of the Social Security program.

I figured I'd add a little more controversy to the mix http//forum.freeipodguide.com/smilies_mod/upload/da617110bb5f1b3cf60a65544101872d.gif[" alt=""/img747bfdade6]

[quote5350aff6c6="skepticalcynic"]This off-topic thread becoming even more off-topic was my doing, I fear. But like I said - it's all part of the big economic picture and really can't be separated.

But to get back to the real subject of Social Security... IF it were possible to separate SS from the rest of the economy... I have to say I think Social Security and Medicare money should be used only to support people who are disabled and cannot support themselves. It should NOT be used to support the retired and elderly.[/quote5350aff6c6]

And you say you aren't associated with any political parties. That sounds pretty left leaning to me.

My opinions run the entire range from extreme left to extreme right, depending on the subject.

shrug

In regards to CEO severance. The board doesn't give that to them for the heck of it. They're guaranteed that in their contract. Heres a really nice video on greed, if you haven't seen it.

http//thelibertarianforum.com/Videos/Greed-is-a-virtue-John-Stossel.html

btw, since that's your site, you should really think about license problems for posting ABC videos like that.

nice design and layout though.

[quote432b8db1bd="doylnea"]btw, since that's your site, you should really think about license problems for posting ABC videos like that.[/quote432b8db1bd]

He's thinking in Libertarian terms - freedom to do whatever he chooses without the restriction of government interference.

edit I'm dumb

Why do you assume I placed them without the proper permission? Perhaps i Emailed ABC and asked for their distinct permission before posting such videos? I assure you, They're there legally.

"In my mind, greed is when acquisition of wealth comes at the expense of others, and therefore is always bad. "

By that definition, Every business is bad. When Costco is successful, It hurts small retailers. When ShopRite lets you get cheap produce, The family owned small retailer loses. When Geeksquad wins, The Joe PC techie loses.

There will ALWAYS be "expense of others". However, you can't say that these companies are being "evil" by being successful. Thats absurd.

[quote55e8f5f188="KnightTrader"]"In my mind, greed is when acquisition of wealth comes at the expense of others, and therefore is always bad. "

By that definition, Every business is bad.[/quote55e8f5f188]

I'm surprised you didn't take it to the extreme of since you're breathing oxygen that other people COULD have breathed, you're doing it at someone else's expense, so you must be evil.

Nice bumping your own topic a week later, where you were already the last person to post in it. I don't know about everyone else, but I lost interest when you made some absurd stretches to interpret other people's statements in the most extreme, literal terms, to try and argue your point.